Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co. v. Patton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “responses that do not point to any evidence in the record . . . do not function as denials, and will be deemed admissions of the stated fact” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that a party opposing summary judgment must “specifically respond to the assertion of each purported undisputed fact . . . and, if controverting any such fact, [must] support its position by citing to admissible evidence in the record”
• finding statements “lack[ing] citations to admissible evidence” to violate Local Rule 56.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56
• “speaking past Defendants’ asserted facts without specifically controverting those same facts” does not create a triable issue
• collecting cases for the proposition that “[t]o be considered similarly situated, an individual must have been treated more favorably by the same decisionmaker that dealt with the plaintiff”
• collecting cases holding that 2 Counter Statement to Def.’s 56.1 (“Pl.’s Counter 56.1”); Pl.’s 56.1 Statement in Opp’n to Mot. (“Pl.’s 56.1”); Def.’s Counter Statement to Pl.’s 56.1 (“Def.’s Counter 56.1”); Def.’s Reply 56.1 Statement in Supp. of Mot. (“Def.’s Reply 56.1”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).